Gus Van Horn blogged about this review yesterday, highlighting the point made by Jay Lehr (the reviewer) that most intelligent people seek a second opinion for their medical care, but that global warming activists try their hardest to make this seem like an absurd thing to do in the case of global warming. They instead repeat the mantra, "the science is settled." Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

This is certainly an important point to note. In reading the review I found something else that jumped out at me that I wanted to mention. While it is true that there has been some warming on Earth in the past decades, ours is not the only planet in the solar system experiencing this.

In Solomon's interview with Friis-Christensen, the scientist states he was originally optimistic about the work IPCC [UN panel on climate change] would do in studying the sun's influence on climate change. To his surprise, however, IPCC refused to consider the sun's effect on the Earth's climate as a topic worthy of investigation. IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.

That is a huge omission, [Habibullo]Abdussamatov [Russian Academy of Science] points out. He notes there has been global warming on other planets and moons in the solar system, and this demonstrates other forces may be at work regarding the Earth's moderate recent warming. "Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians," he observes.

Abdussamatov, at the pinnacle of Russia's scientific establishment, is one of the world's most eminent critics of the notion carbon dioxide is driving global warming. He argues these "parallel global-warmings observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth--can only be a straight line consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance." [all emphasis mine]

What? I can't believe I had never heard this before. Upon a moment's reflection, it seems obvious that if the solar cycles were heating the Earth, other planets would be affected too. I'm aware of the research concerning the 11-year solar cycles and the idea that the sun is responsible for most of the temperature increase. But it never occurred to me to draw the connection to other planets that DO NOT HAVE HUMANS ON THEM.

I know that such simple logical arguments will have little impact on those who have their emotional/environmental blinders on and who consider any critical analysis of global warming alarmism akin to denying the Holocaust. But this one point, that other planets in the solar system are warming up too, practically screams to me that anthropogenic catastrophic global warming is total bunk. It's the SUN, stupid!

2 comments:

I think this is hilarious! I'm floored. The Sun . . . who'd a thunk it?

It is scary to know that the whole Sun theory is just dismissed out of hand though. I'm certainly no scientist, but seems like you'd study all possible factors and rule them out as the evidence warrants. But science as such is not my strong suit . . . .

You study all the science when learning the facts is your agenda. Power, not knowledge, is the agenda of the Environmentalists (capital 'E' emphasized, not the collectivist, altruistic lower-case 'e' masses who crave jumping on the "man is bad" bandwagon).

Since I read the articles before, my only question is: should I use one of my Christmas requests on this book?